After a fine game (thankful for Vereen and Cannon showing up on the playing field) which featured the good (all things Gronk!,Law Firm, Brady, "No-Name Defense") and the bad (Light and Connolly injuries), I wanted to highlight a few things about yesterday's broadcast that show the Pats are different or treated differently. First, Gruden prides himself on getting the stars of MNF game to come in to his "lair" or bus and chat while watching video. Guess who did NOT show up: Tom Brady. Brady is a superstar who does not sit for such interviews -- Aaron Rogers and Drew Brees do. Of course, Gruden had the ever-classy Bob Kraft as a substitute. Second, noticed how Gruden & Jaws kept marveling at the many role players on the Pats. Of course our now famous collection of "no-Name Defense" made up of other teams rejects, undrafted agents drew substantial comment. Gruden noted that Merriweather and Sanders were cut before the season and now the Pats had Adams, Molden and Moore. All commentators sounded like they were shaking their heads that the defense was playing as well as it has. Then in the post-game show, Dilfer played the skeptic. "Yes, they have numerous sacks but they really don't have an impressive pass rush." He concluded, the Pats don;t have anyone the opposing team feared, no one offenses had to game play for". None of this is surprising. What this tells us is that experts hold the Pats to a higher standard. The more critical scrutiny is a form of complement. What they are overlooking is that the Pats are constantly improving, the "No-name Defense" has held in and are growing, our defense did not commit many penalties. The people BB cut are not exactly lighting it up for their new teams, which speak to his judgment. As a counterpoint, have you noticed that Ron Borges was very complimentary of the Pats defensive performance last night. Who says a leopard can't change his stripes?